I'm okay with CGI on occasion as long as it can properly transition between 2D and CGI.

The tachikomas, for example, were done very well.

The intro for the show on the other hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxkMzn4et2U
didn't make proper use of CGI, and relied on it entirely instead of transitioning between the two styles. I love the intro song, but I'd be lying if I said the animation itself didn't creep me out every time I watched it.

>>100699900>So why does /a/ hate CGI so much?
I am fine with the CGI of WCW, because they are used when magic spells are cast. It makes sense that magical creatures would look different from muggle things.

You try to hand draw that shit on the time frame they are giving the animators these days. I don't like it, but I understand when they make the call to Korea to have some shitty CGI done so the series gets done.

>>100701150
You shut your whore mouth, old man—it was love at first sight. The way she strolled down the boulevard, floating on air; her crystal voice, like well-leaded glass; her curvy figure, perfect for rolling morningstar damage; and that coquettish flip of her fractal pattern at the slightest megawatt.

My heart melted with the dulcet shrieks of her fractalic tunnel-borer vaporizing my twenty-two layers of doubt, and, her touch penetrating deeply, I knew she was the one for me.

I have a claim on her that no anon, past or present, can ever match, and our most amorous love shall remain truer than her buxom vertices.

>>100702856
I actually prefer it when they do that. Given the low framerates of even the hardest-flogged Korean animators, a sudden bout of buttery smoothness makes CGI look even more out of place than it would otherwise.

The people walking far-off in the background of some scenes in Maoh Maou Yuusha are particularly jarring to my autism, but they'd probably blend in if they matched the chop of the foreground (pictured).

>>100699900
/a/ isn't one person. I think CGI is fine when it's done well. The tachikomas are a great example of CGI done well. Just this season, Tonari no Seki Kun had some great CGI with the eraser dominoes. Last season, KlK had some pretty terrible CGI in the fight between Ryuuko and Satsuki. Everything should be judged on a case by case basis; you shouldn't just make broad sweeping statements like "/a/ thinks CGI is bad."

>>100703611>KlK had some pretty terrible CGI in the fight between Ryuuko and Satsuki
That was bad? I can usually pick out CG in an instant but I had to watch it two or three times to even notice. I just thought they'd pumped half the budget into those few seconds.

>>100703690
Dude, come on. Satsuki's head was obviously cgi. The shoulders on her kamui really stood out as CGI too. It was most obvious when she was walk-running up the wall, but the whole scene was bad CGI.

>>100703734
Oh, please elaborate. What makes you think that? Are you saying there's something about Aiura that wasn't beautiful? Because I think literally everything about it from the backgrounds and animation to the character designs and story were beautiful.

>>100703805>Are you saying there's something about Aiura that wasn't beautiful?

Its length for one thing.

And all of the things that Aiura doesn't have that can also be considered beautiful. Elegant swordplay, noble ideals, the passion between two lovers, and so on and so forth. Ignoring the possibility of beauty in all of those while only noticing the innocence of friendship/youth and some appealing locations suggests that you don't know much of beauty.

I know someone made one of the whole thing going, but I didn't save it because I thought the removal of Yokois reactions (to fit filesize) made it not as cool. The CGI for these looked pretty good though.

>>100704484
Where the eraser slips from his hand and somersaults looks CG as hell. The eraser-dominoes falling look better—it wouldn't surprise me if the last shot, where they're falling perpendicular to the viewer, was hand drawn.

CGI is fine for mecha and stuff, but for people it almost always looks bad unless it's a still shot.

You can't animate a person expressively with CGI. Or at least I have never seen it done well. It's always stiff and horrible. You get clipping issues, weird shadow behavior, and most importantly, you'll have something like a character's arm move, and their hand staying completely still, with only the arm moving. That just doesn't happen in hand-drawn for the most part. They can't draw a hand completely stiff at a different angle.

Especially because they never choose good frames to leave in. They just automatically cut out certain ones, when if it were hand-drawn, each frame would be checked by a human being to make sure it looks okay. Or at the very least, keyframes would be.

>>100705457
Maybe it's just the tiny gif, but I think those erasers look pretty good, up until the one riding on the crane at the very end.

The camera pulling back through and between the erasers looks CG, but probably because you just don't *do* that kind of shot by hand instead of any defect with the CG. It probably wouldn't have roused my autism had I not specifically been looking for it in an autism thread.

>>100705778
It looks fine on full screen too. I think the reason these erasers look good is because they're so simple and the overall artstyle of the series is also very simple. They really don't stand out as being out of place. I'm waiting for the chess episode to see if they use CGI for the chess piece models. Those would probably stand out more.

>>100705981
Some companies do some good CG.
I think the real problem lies with the directors. A lot of the time it seems like they don't think about how the CG will look in a shot. They just throw it in there as a replacement for traditional animation without any other thoughts.